I'm 150% for net neutrality because Comcast has been shilling extra hard against it, and if those greedy, manipulative, and unpleasant ***** think it's a bad thing, I know for a fact that it can only benefit the consumer. **** Comcast, hope they eat **** and ******* die.

Yeah, they shill hard but they haven't actively ****** over my usage of a free and open internet. Netflix shills against it because we've literally caught ISPs throttling connection to their service for more money, they have done nothing wrong.

I was in Boston, Mass, where it was either Comcast or ******** RCN, but since have moved to a place where I can get Verizon. I used to pay $60 for 20mbps, which is already a ******* sin inofitself, but what was worse was that if I was ******* lucky I'd get 3mbps on a good day, and usually the Internet cut out every six minutes once it hit 12. It was ********, I'm paying for 20mbps, I should at least see speeds that ******* approach it. Nowadays I'm paying $60 for 100mbps from Verizon and I see at least 60 - 70mbps constant. Net doesn't cut out, and sites don't get throttled, which is something I've seen happen, Funnyjunk would connect fine while Youtube loaded slower than a downs afflicted potato in theoretical physics.

**** Comcast, if I could get away with anything I'd light several of their offices on fire and shoot the CEO's ******* dog.

Reposting from my reply in another post, it's really not that simple at all.

Sorry was in an exam. It's a bit of a convoluted answer but here's the reasoning behind why net neutrality in it's current incarnation is awful. So net neutrality specifically refers to treating all traffic in terms of QoS equally WITHIN a service providers network, really says nothing about when packets egress. But the current debate over it started when Comcast and Netflix had a peering conflict contractually because Netflix consumes a huge portion of overall internet bandwidth and thus needs their content delivery networks to run on special carrier interconnections that they pay for, basically a tap into their fiber backbones. Well when you're talking about the tier 1 to tier 2 level of the internet, a lot of the stuff I and this team called DNT Core works on at my work for example, you have to make sure the traffic balance between major tier 1 and 2 providers is fair. Basically level 3 is handing off an equal amount of traffic to Comcast and so on. This is why you have to enter into an interconnection contract with these providers, because it's a careful traffic balancing act. Well when Comcast and Netflix had a dispute about their interconnection agreement, Netflix ran to Congress and said it's a violation of net neutrality. And all of these media outlets were showing graphs about how Netflix is being slowed down... When that wasn't the case, all that happened is their higher tier peering agreement ended and customers were accessing their content delivery servers through the public internet and the QAM/DOCSIS cable system. So obviously performance suffers because it's like Netflix opens a firehose to all of these very small pipes going to customers homes. They framed it as a net neutrality argument when it wasn't one, all of that was a none issue in the first place. Now it's extremely unfair to the ISPs and tier 1 providers that have pre-existing contracts that are, in a free market, MUTUALLY beneficial because, for example, Charter can provide a fat pipe to customers homes for Netflix if they pay us and we both make money. It would have been like you're forcing ISPs to give large customers Interconnection which everyone else pays for but they don't. Basically, a very basic analogy because I don't know how well I explained that, is that in a free market people can pay to use the HOV lane. If you open the HOV lane to everyone the people that paid get no benefit. It was a devastating ruling for our industry.

Being able to rely on the free market requires competition No ajit pai, satellite and dialup arent competition , and that the ISPs arent using corrupt and shady tactics Lawsuits and legal bribery to stay at the top. Unfortunately neither of these are true.

Also, for those that say site packages is fear mongering would never happen, you dont have to look any further than Portugal. Not to mention similar has already happened.

-AT&T blocked Skype in 2011 because it was competition for it's Cell and home phone service.
-AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon blocked access to Google Wallet because it competed with their own payment apps; 2011
-TWC attempted to extort Riot Games and Netflix for money to upgrade their infrastructure, basically holding TWC users hostage; 2017
-MetroPCS blocked ALL streaming services. They tried to sue the FCC to let them; 2011.
-Verizon went on record in 2013 saying the only thing that kept them from favoring some content over others is the potential pro-net neutrality backlash.

I'm tired of seeing this same images being used as an argument for Net Neutrality, when it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

What you're seeing there are extra data packages for phones. You have your basic plan, nd then you can pay extra to visit those sites/apps for no additional data cost. So for example, you pay 5 extra € to watch all ******* netflix/youtube/similar without it consuming additional data.

But it has absolutely nothing to do with it!
One thing is limiting speeds or access on certain sites, or to certain customers, and other is offering unlimited data usage (Specifying on phones, that is).
Like, that's been a thing since... ever, at least here! You can get a plan with, say, 2GB a month, phone calls and all that shizz aside, or you can pay extra to get more data monthly. Only here you can pay just a bit extra to get as much data as you want for stuff like Netflix or youtube while you're out.

There are plans where you can get unlimited data on everything, but usually those cost a *******.

Ill admit your right on this part. mobile having datacaps has been a thing for forever, and although its far from an ideal situation, it is a more flexible way to pay for extra data. When i saw that image originally, i knew it applied to a data capped plan, but didnt know it was a mobile data capped plan.

I would ask if you could trust your ISP not to bring similar **** to standard internet plans without net neutrality or any of the consumer protection laws the EU has in place, but i dont know the state of competition in your country. Here our competition consists of a single cable company like comcast, cellular plans(also heavily capped), or sattelite.

Without any protections in place companies are free to do whatever they want because the customers have no real alternative.

It's cool, I know what it looks like at first, and it's easy to missunderstand, hence why I try to tell the people that it's not what it looks like.

I do agree that phone data rates are overall full of ********, using the excuse of "portable" to add a cap limit is BS all around. I've heard that there's internet limits on home internet on the US too (which is surreal to me, not gonna lie). They're mafia-like here in Spain, I don't even wanna know how it'd be if that sort of business practices applied to us.

And yeah, just like you, ISP's here is pretty much a massive company with most of the infrastructure with a bunch of others "pretending" to be as big, and in the end it's all the same ****, without NN it'd be much much worse.

You're right, which all the more reason that Pai's plan that does affect what you are referring to also allows for the image above. This current plan is not the right answer, it will give you what you want and are arguing for, but you have got to understand that even though that image doesn't have anything to do with NN, that is what will happen based on the information from Pai's plan.

Hmm, that much I can agree with, yeah. I can see that happening if NN is taken down (which, just in case, is something I wouldn't enjoy, it'd be a ******* *********).
It's just that I've seen this picture in particular being used without context and spreading missinformation that's just tiring, like, no joke, I've seen it on twitter 3 or 4 times this week alone!

Can i get a link to this, couldnt find anything oh his profile? sounds interesting though it doesnt make sense for verizon to pay someone to put them in a bad light

btw i got the list from elsewhere, though i did search each claim and they generally held true. The exceptions being the date is off on the first two by two years, and the last one i couldnt find a direct quote from verizon though i did find many results showing they were either attempting or thinking about doing so at that time

the exact same thing happened with the railroad barrons in the late 19th century, they all owned all the rail, fixed their prices, so the gov't had to sieze the railroads.
I don't like the government taking things but I feel that it is necessary in this case.
Private corporations should not have the ability to affect your access to information or your ability to share it.

I've heard arguments on both sides, and personally I'd wish these ISP businesses would stay true to their word and provide the best for us, since it is usually considered an important service (mission critical in some cases)

I'm not really qualified to say anything, I just hope whatever happens it'll be fine

It always based on however much you pay. If you pay a low price then its probably gonna be ****. If you pay a higher price then its gonna be fantastic. Internet access is a service NOT a utility. If you don't like a companys prices or service you can switch. This is the exact same as the "internet is a human right" ********. Its the EXACT same, but with a little name swapping its getting reasonable people like you on board. Besides if this goes through your access on whether its ****** or good will be solely dictated by the place your staying at and you will have no control over which company is providing it.

Except that's not how it works.
I can't switch. Literally. I can't. Comcast is the only provider where I live. So it's either Comcast or no internet at all. My situation is extremely common. So no, standard market forces won't do jack **** here. It has to be regulated.

(I'll also point out that rhe FCC classified it as a utility until a guy literally paid for by the IP's was put at the head. So you're also not understanding where the FCC has stood and why this os a conversation again. End of extra credit.)

You literally don't understand what classifying something as a Utility means. It means it goes in equal amount to everyone who pays. This is not a government conspiracy to limit your internet. You're confusing it for the corporate conspiracy to determine what you can and can't see.

And you are aware that my house isn't a wifi hotspot, and I shouldn't be expected to have to go somewhere other than my house for internet in a first world country, right? You know you're advocating for running internet in the same way they do in Paraguay, the 2nd poorest country in south america, where people in houses literally made of garbage.

You're currently selling that to me as the model to copy. The model used in a place where nobody has an address, the most common form of transportation is a donkey cart, and the roads are just rocks laid onto dirt. We apparently need to be more like Paraguay.

Somehow, that strikes me as a fairly bad country to emulate on literally any policy except maybe "murder is bad." But, again, your argument is that they do it right.

In case you don't have the two neurons to rub together to understand my point:
You have no ******* idea what Net Neutrality means and you need to shut up and read a book before you talk to me about it.

>claims strawmen, has no argument other than "muh status quo"
>still cant find two braincells to rub together for reading comprehension
>is literally arguing that the way it was is best because that's how it was. Yes, and we should **** in holes because plumbing wasn't a utility at first.
>can only come at me with "yeah, well... I QUESTION YOUR AGE OR MATURITY NYEHEHEHE *snort*"

So in short, this retort gets a D-. Poorly thought out, no point, doesn't understand what its replying to, just flailing attempts at insults that I've seen better versions of on a playground.
Also you blocked me like a whiney little bitch, indicating that you can't stomach disagreement and are a coward.

I see in the comments a lot of people referring to both sides of the argument. You see the idea for Net Neutrality as whole could be a good idea if it was managed ad controlled by the right type of people, and if it was used more as a security measure rather than a control measure. The companies and people who want this to go forward or only telling the public about the cold whip topping on this tar filled sundae. The premise makes sense, limit and control what is out there so that terrorists and hackers have more of a limited playing court. But at a cost of slicing up the freedom of internet and expression. You can easily compare some of this to some of the recent general premises of the SJW movement. "I don't like that so nobody should enjoy it either, I don't know how to do that so no one else is allowed allowed to do it either." Other portions would basically make you need to pay more for everything, Are you paying for a streaming service? Well you'd also need to sign up and most likely pay more for the ability to use said service, and services wouldn't be generalized, they would be separated, music streaming would be it's own this while video streaming would be another. Any combined services would be on their own. Sites that everyone seems to enjoy or visit often (FJ, Reddit, Tumblr, Youtube, /b/ etc.) would probably also be under a whole other service (based on the information I've read up on) and they would be micromanaged to control hate and potential threats, even in a joking manner could have bad results. It would control what information we would be allowed to look up, want to learn general computer manipulation skills? You could be flagged as a hacker.

Is it really worth our freedom as a human being to have security? Do we truly want to limit out creative abilities simply because we are afraid of being accused of being a terrorist. In the world today a simple accusation is treated as fact whether you have been declared innocent or not.

In my personal opinion, we are heading down a dangerous spiral that will destroy modern society if it isn't corrected soon.

Okay guys, I am still trying to wrap my head around all this, so I know I'm nowhere near qualified to say which side is right.

My problem with the internet being a utility (like our water, gas, electric), is that all of those things have a rate for which they go for, but you are charged for how much you use (with exception of maybe waste disposal which is usually with your water bill) as these are all resources.

Yes, the internet is a vast resource for information, which is amazing. Yeah net neutrality will help with keeping service quality to a better standard (maybe?) for customers. Yeah, they all have to provide the same service, but is there anything keeping them from charging for how much data you consume per month? We all get charged for how many gallons of water we consume and how many watts of electricity we use every month.

Forgive me if this has already been addressed, or if you have the time, educate me on how this is supposed to work, or if I am completely off base. Not trying to add to the argument, just trying to learn.

It has nothing to do with the quality of service itself. Currently you pay for access to a certain amount of bandwidth and you are free to do with it what you want, in much the same way that you are allowed to use your electricity however you want. Now imagine that instead of just paying for access to electricity you had to choose from one of several different packages that stipulated what specific appliances you were allowed to use. That's essentially what could happen with web access if net neutrality goes away. ISPs would be allowed to limit and even completely block access to specific websites for whatever purposes they see fit.

I currently pay (way too much mind you) for unlimited usage of my internet service, but limited to a certain "speed" or whatever. Whereas, with the electricity, I pay for how much of it I use, where we all get the same electricity.

So okay, thank you for correcting me about the "quality" part of my post. Got that cleared up.

I'm not really asking about what happens if NN is cast away, I am asking about from here on out, that our internet access is treated as a utility instead of a service, how could things change around that how we are charged for this utility? I keep seeing the same things posted over and over again about how our access will be limited if NN goes away. I'm not trying to argue a point here.

If instead we are charged for how much data we use, say like per gb, much like how data plans are on phones for 4g data, will the average consumer base be okay with that? Could that happen? I don't know.
I am just curious to hear people's thoughts on that as well. Like I said, not arguing against NN

Speaking from personal experience, that's not as bad of a suggestion as some people seem to think it is. I'm not saying it's good; it's a **** suggestion, but it's not the end of the world scenario that people pretend it is.
There are already data use caps in place for several ISPs throughout the country (mostly ISPs providing cable-based connections, which tend to have a rather high bandwidth compared to standard DSL connections). For the vast majority of users, you won't hit the data cap (we're talking caps sitting around 500GB/month for download being the low end. The $100/month plan I had had a 1TB download limit per month, and a speed of 60mbps), and on the off chance you do end up hitting that limit, you pay around $10 more per 50GB you go over.

tl;dr: That's already a thing ISPs using cable lines for internet service do.